Factors that make response selection more difficult, most notably incompatibility between displays and controls, degrade performance. The cost of incompatibility on performance is often much greater for older than for younger adults. To design products that accommodate decreased response selection capabilities of older adults, designers need to understand the specific ways in which response selection processes change with age. The purpose of the present paper is to review research on age-related changes in stimulus-response compatibility and response precuing effects, the two effects that are most directly linked to basic response selection processes. Several specific aspects of response selection that are particularly harmful for older adults' performance are identified. Potential applications of this research include initial guidelines for minimizing the effects of those aspects when designing for older adults.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adam, J. J., Paas, F. G. W. C., Teeken, J. C., van Loon, E. M., van Boxtel, M. P. J., Houx, P. J., et al. (1998). Effects of age on performance in a finger-precuing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 870-883.
2.
Amrhein, P. C., Stelmach, G. E., & Goggin, N. L. (1991). Age differences in the maintenance and restructuring of movement preparation. Psychology and Aging, 6, 451-466.
3.
Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1990). Display-control compatibility in the cockpit: Guidelines for display layout analysis (Tech. Report). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
4.
Bonin-Guillaume, S., Possamaï, C.-A., Blin, O., & Hasbrouq, T. (2000). Stimulus preprocessing, response selection, and motor adjustment in the elderly: An additive factor analysis. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 19, 245-255.
5.
Castiello, U., Bompani, R., Nonis, E., & Umiltà, C. (1990). L'effetto di compatibilita' stimolo-riposta negli anziani [Stimulusresponse compatibility in elderly]. In D. Salmaso, & P. Caffarra (Eds.), Normalitá e patologia delle funzioni cognitive nell'invecchiamento (pp. 63-68). Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli.
6.
Cerella, J. (1990). Aging and information processing rate. In J. E. Birren, & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and aging (3rd ed., pp. 201-221). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7.
Chapanis, A., & Lindenbaum, L. E. (1959). A reaction time study of four control-display linkages. Human Factors, 1, 1-7.
8.
Charness, N., & Bosman, E. A. (1992). Human factors and age. In F. I. M. CraikF. I. M. Craik, & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (pp. 495-551). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
Christensen, C. A., Ford, J. M., & Pfefferbaum, A. (1996). The effect of stimulus-response compatibility on P3 latency depends on the task but not on age. Biological Psychology, 44, 121-141.
10.
Chua, R., Pollock, B. J., Elliott, D., & Swanson, L. R. (1995). The influence of age on manual asymmetries in movement preparation and execution. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11, 129-137.
11.
Clark, J. E., Lamphear, A. K., & Riddick, C. C. (1987). The effects of videogame playing on the response selection processing of elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology, 42, 82-85.
12.
Corpolongo, M., & Salmon, P. (1981). Comparison of information-processing capacities in young and aged subjects using reaction times. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 987-994.
13.
Deupree, R. H., & Simon, R. J. (1963). Reaction time and movement time as a function of age, stimulus duration, and task difficulty. Ergonomics, 6, 403-411.
14.
Diggles-Buckles, V., & Vercruyssen, M. (1990). Age-related slowing, S-R compatibility, and stages of information processing. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 154-157). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
15.
Dutta, A., & Proctor, R. W. (1992). Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 801-809.
16.
Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483-492.
17.
Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210.
18.
Goodman, D., & Kelso, J. (1980). Are movements prepared in parts? Not under compatible (naturalized) conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 475-495.
19.
Griew, S. (1964). Age, information transmission and the positional relationship between signals and responses in the performance of a choice task. Ergonomics, 7, 267-277.
20.
Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11-26.
21.
Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (Eds.). (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility.Amsterdam: North-Holland.
22.
Howell, W. C. (1997). Foreword, perspectives, and prospectives. In A. D. Fisk, & W. A. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and the older adult (pp. 1-6). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23.
Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 188-196.
24.
Kantowitz, B. H., Triggs, T. J., & Barnes, V. E. (1990). Stimulusresponse compatibility and human factors. In R. W. Proctor, & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 365-388). Amsterdam: North-Holland
25.
Kausler, D. H. (1991). Experimental psychology, cognition, and human aging (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
26.
Kline, D. W., & Scialfa, C. T. (1997). Sensory and perceptual functioning: Basic research and human factors research. In A. D. Fisk, & W. A. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and the older adult (pp. 27-54). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
27.
Larish, D. D., & Stelmach, G. E. (1982). Preprogramming, programming, and reprogramming of aimed hand movements as a function of age. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14, 322-340.
28.
Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94, 145-188.
29.
Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 174-207.
30.
Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Influence of irrelevant information on human performance: Effects of S-R association strength and relative timing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 95-136.
31.
Marottoli, R. A., Mendes de Leon, C. F., Glass, T. A., Williams, C. S., Cooney, L. M., Jr., & Berkman, L. F. (2000). Consequences of driving cessation: Decreased out-of-home activity levels. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55, S334-S340.
32.
Meiran, N., & Gotler, A. (2001). Modelling cognitive control in task switching and ageing. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13, 165-186.
33.
Meiran, N., Gotler, A., & Perlman, A. (2001). Old age is associated with a pattern of relatively intact and relatively impaired taskset switching abilities. Journal of Gerontology, 56B, P88-P102.
34.
Melis, A., Soetens, E., & van der Molen, M. W. (2002). Processspecific slowing with advancing age: Evidence derived from the analysis of sequential effects. Brain and Cognition, 49, 420-435.
35.
Miller, J. (1982). Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: In search of partial output. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 273-296.
36.
Myerson, J., Hale, S., Wagstaff, D., Poon, L., & Smith, G. A. (1990). The information-loss model: A mathematical theory of age-related cognitive slowing. Psychological Review, 97, 475-487.
37.
Perel, M. (1998). Helping older drivers benefit from in-vehicle technologies (Paper No. 98-S2-0-11). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
38.
Pick, D. F., & Proctor, R. W. (1999). Age differences in the effects of irrelevant location information. In M. Scerbo, & M. W. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation technology and human performance (pp. 258-261). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
Proctor, R. W., & Lu, C.-H. (1999). Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks. Memory and Cognition, 27, 63-77.
40.
Proctor, R. W., Pick, D. F., Vu, K.-P. L., & Anderson, R. E. (2005). The enhanced Simon effect for older adults is reduced when the irrelevant location information is conveyed by an accessory stimulus. Acta Psychologica, 19, 21-40.
41.
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2002). Mixing location irrelevant and relevant trials: Influence of stimulus mode on spatial compatibility effects. Memory and Cognition, 30, 281-294.
42.
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2003). Action selection. In A. F. Healy, & R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 4. Experimental psychology (pp. 293-316). New York: Wiley.
43.
Reeve, T. G., & Proctor, R. W. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 541-553.
44.
Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444-474.
45.
Salthouse, T. A., & Miles, J. D. (2002). Aging and time-sharing aspects of executive control. Memory and Cognition, 30, 572-582.
46.
Sanders, A. F. (1980). Some effects of instructed muscle tension on choice reaction time and movement time. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 59-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47.
Sanders, A. F. (1998). Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48.
Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284-288.
49.
Simon, J. R. (1967). Choice reaction time as a function of auditory S-R correspondence, age and sex. Ergonomics, 10, 659-664.
50.
Simon, J. R. (1968). Signal processing time as a function of aging. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 76-80.
51.
Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor, & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31-86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
52.
Simon, J. R., & Pouraghabagher, A. R. (1978). The effect of aging on the stages of processing in a choice reaction time task. Journal of Gerontology, 33, 553-561.
53.
Simon, J. R., & Wolf, J. D. (1963). Choice reaction time as a function of angular stimulus-response correspondence and age. Ergonomics, 6, 99-105.
54.
Smulders, F. T. Y., Kenemans, J. L., Jonkman, L. M., & Kok, A. (1997). The effects of sleep loss on task performance and the electroencephalogram in young and elderly subjects. Biological Psychology, 45, 217-239.
55.
Smulders, F. T. Y., Kenemans, J. L., Schmidt, W. F., & Kok, A. (1999). Effects of task complexity in young and old adults: Reaction time and P300 latency are not always dissociated. Psychophysiology, 36, 118-125.
56.
Stelmach, G. E., Goggin, N. L., & Amrheim, P. C. (1988). Aging and restructuring of precued movements. Psychology and Aging, 3, 151-157.
57.
Stelmach, G. E., Goggin, N. L., & Garcia-Colera, A. (1987). Movement specification time with age. Experimental Aging Research, 13, 39-46.
58.
Stelmach, G. E., & Nahom, A. (1992). Cognitive-motor abilities of the elderly driver. Human Factors, 34, 53-65.
59.
Suci, G. J., Davidoff, M. D., & Surwillo, W. W. (1960). Reaction time as a function of stimulus information and age. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 242-244.
60.
Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1985). Attention and coding effects in S-R compatibility due to irrelevant spatial cues. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 457-471). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
61.
Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor, & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89-116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
62.
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. (2002). National population projections. Retrieved February 22, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natsum-T3.html
63.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2003). Why is human factors engineering important for medical devices? Retrieved February 8, 2003, from http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/humanfactors/important.html
64.
Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., & Verleger, R. (2002). Aging and the Simon task. Psychophysiology, 39, 100-110.
65.
Vercruyssen, M. (1997). Movement control and speed of behavior. In A. D. Fisk, & W. A. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and the older adult (pp. 55-86). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
66.
Verhaeghen, P., & De Meersman, L. (1998). Aging and the Stroop effect: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 13, 120-126.
67.
Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects. Quarterly Journal of Psychology, 57A, 539-556.
68.
Vu, K.-P. L., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2004, November). Response preparation in younger and older adults. Poster presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis, MN.
69.
Wang, H., & Proctor, R. W. (1996). Stimulus-response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1201-1217.
